IMPress Polly
09-23-2014, 07:28 AM
So what kind of games do you prefer: games of chance or games wherein your skill level is the main factor determining your fate?
Most table top games and card games start out as games of chance, but they often gradually evolve into games of skill as they mature. For example, in the predecessors to modern-day chess, players rolled a dice to determine which piece to move on any given turn and the special pieces lacked their modern functions. Likewise, the oldest pinball machines had neither flippers nor a tilt option: you just set the ball in motion and watched it fall. The number of points you amassed was based entirely on dumb luck. And it was a form of gambling too originally, because you'd get money back or not based on the outcome. Magic: The Gathering likewise is undergoing a similar evolution over time, as newer expansions tend to have fewer cards with chance-oriented feature. Also, the mulligan rule has been changed over time to afford players more of a guarantee of a good starting hand, and the gambling aspect that the game originally featured (the loser of a given match used to lose their deck to the victor) has been long since done away with.
What accounts for this pattern, you ask? Well basically, luck is an appealing game play factor for newbies, novices, and casual players, as it helps level the playing field between the more skilled and the less skilled, giving even a beginner some chance of defeating a pro. That will never happen in a game like modern-day chess. When a game is new, obviously everyone is a beginner, so luck as a game play factor is used to induce people to play. Then, once the game has established a steady and largely maxed-out following, the players, now having a fair amount of experience to the point of becoming bored with having to depend on dumb luck, demand an increase in the role of skill in the game play and invent variations on the original rules and game play structure that are more skill-based, and eventually one or another of those modifications catches on and functionally replaces the original rules and game play structure over time. That's what often happens as games mature. Not all games seem to follow that pattern though. I mean obviously there's a vast difference in the level of strategy that's typically involved in an average game of, for example, UNO, Old Maid, Solitaire, Crazy 8s, or even Poker (traditional card games, in other words) on the one hand and the amount of strategy involved in a typical game of Magic: The Gathering, Magi Nation, Pokemon, or really any other trading card game. Certain types of games seem to be more alterable than others. Monopoly is probably the closest thing there is (or at least it's the closest thing I can think of) to a game that's equally luck and skill, but it's still basically luck and there aren't many variations on the traditional rules even today.
What's your preference? Personally, I tend to prefer games that minimize chance as a factor. When I played trading card games, I deliberately constructed my decks in such a way as to minimize reliance on luck. I didn't use many cards that required coin flips, for example. But if you're more of a casual gamer, I can see why you might like the luck factor, as it would level the playing field more and give you some chance of defeating players with more experience. Or maybe you just like gambling; the thrill of risking it all. (I don't!)
Most table top games and card games start out as games of chance, but they often gradually evolve into games of skill as they mature. For example, in the predecessors to modern-day chess, players rolled a dice to determine which piece to move on any given turn and the special pieces lacked their modern functions. Likewise, the oldest pinball machines had neither flippers nor a tilt option: you just set the ball in motion and watched it fall. The number of points you amassed was based entirely on dumb luck. And it was a form of gambling too originally, because you'd get money back or not based on the outcome. Magic: The Gathering likewise is undergoing a similar evolution over time, as newer expansions tend to have fewer cards with chance-oriented feature. Also, the mulligan rule has been changed over time to afford players more of a guarantee of a good starting hand, and the gambling aspect that the game originally featured (the loser of a given match used to lose their deck to the victor) has been long since done away with.
What accounts for this pattern, you ask? Well basically, luck is an appealing game play factor for newbies, novices, and casual players, as it helps level the playing field between the more skilled and the less skilled, giving even a beginner some chance of defeating a pro. That will never happen in a game like modern-day chess. When a game is new, obviously everyone is a beginner, so luck as a game play factor is used to induce people to play. Then, once the game has established a steady and largely maxed-out following, the players, now having a fair amount of experience to the point of becoming bored with having to depend on dumb luck, demand an increase in the role of skill in the game play and invent variations on the original rules and game play structure that are more skill-based, and eventually one or another of those modifications catches on and functionally replaces the original rules and game play structure over time. That's what often happens as games mature. Not all games seem to follow that pattern though. I mean obviously there's a vast difference in the level of strategy that's typically involved in an average game of, for example, UNO, Old Maid, Solitaire, Crazy 8s, or even Poker (traditional card games, in other words) on the one hand and the amount of strategy involved in a typical game of Magic: The Gathering, Magi Nation, Pokemon, or really any other trading card game. Certain types of games seem to be more alterable than others. Monopoly is probably the closest thing there is (or at least it's the closest thing I can think of) to a game that's equally luck and skill, but it's still basically luck and there aren't many variations on the traditional rules even today.
What's your preference? Personally, I tend to prefer games that minimize chance as a factor. When I played trading card games, I deliberately constructed my decks in such a way as to minimize reliance on luck. I didn't use many cards that required coin flips, for example. But if you're more of a casual gamer, I can see why you might like the luck factor, as it would level the playing field more and give you some chance of defeating players with more experience. Or maybe you just like gambling; the thrill of risking it all. (I don't!)